Delhi Court October 1972 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1972 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.019 seconds)Ramesh Chand Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi383B; 1972RLR153
S.N. Andley, J.(1) When these second appeals against orders came up before Deshpande J., either at the stage of admission or at the time of hearing, he referred them to a larger Bench in view of the decision of Kapur J. in Kaku Mall v. Smt. Dharmi Devi (S.A.O. No. 417 of 1968) decided on February 5, 1971 (2) In the case dealt with by Kapur J., a notice was sent by registered acknowledgement due post by the counsel (Mr. G.R. Chopra, Advocate) for the landlord to the tenant. It was returned with the remark ''refused'. Kapur J. noticed that there was nothing to show from the envelope that it contained a notice from the landlord and he observed:- 'THErefusal of the notice by the tenant, even if it is established. could not be deemed to be the refusal of a notice by the tenant unless there was something on the envelope itself or on the acknowledgement due receipt attached to it, to indicate that it was from the landlord.'(3) The notice in this case was one of demand for arrears of rent unde...
Tag this Judgment!Jai NaraIn Pershad Vs. Parkashchand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi491
Aggarwal, J. (1) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent and arises in execution proceedings. The only point that requires determination in this appeal is one of limitation. The facts relevant to the detrmination of the point in controversy and which are not in dispute are that on 7th January, 1945, Jai Narain Pershad and his father Debi Pershad filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership styled as M/s. Jiwan Lal Jai Narain Pershad and for rendition of accounts. On 21st August, 1947 a preliminary decree for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts was passed. Shri R. K. Tandon Advocate, was appointed as a local Commissioner to go into the accounts. On 18th January, 1949, a final decree relating to the accounts and the partnership was passed and a decree for Rs. 24,446-13-9 was passed in favor of Jai Narain Pershad against Rai Saheb Chiranji Lal and Sons, and a decree for Rs. 39,470-11-6 was passed in favor of R. S. Chiranji Lal & Sons against Jiw...
Tag this Judgment!Binoy Kumar Mukerjee Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi427
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) In or about 1959 a number of presons were appointed as surveyors in the All India Soil and Land Use Survey Scheme, under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, which we will call 'the Scheme'. The appellant was one such, and was appointed on 2nd November 1959. The scale of pay of these surveyors was Rs. 60-150. On 3rd February 1960, they sent a representation to the concerned authority requesting that as surveyors in other organisations of the Government of India were given a pay scale of Rs. 100-185 they ought to receive the same, as their qualifications and duties were similar to those of the other surveyors. The higher scale was apparently paid to surveyors in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Geological Survey of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, Atomic Energy Commission, Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel and the Exploratory Tubewells Organisation. By a letter dated 30th June 1960, surveyors in the Scheme were informed that the scales of pay of Central Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Bawa Vs. Desraj Khanna
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1973RLR20
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The only question involved in this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directed against an interlocutory order of the Additional Controller, allowing the amendment of respondent's eviction petition, is about its maintainability.(2) The respondent filed an eviction petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for the petitioner tenant's eviction. He then filed an application for amendment of the petition by adding a new plea of second default in payment of rent referred to in the proviso to sub section (2) of section 14. The amendment was allowed. No appeal was filed against the amendment The tenant has filed a petition of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(3) When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to the repeatedly expressed views of this court that the Controller appointed under the Rent Control Act is not a civil court governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, al...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1973RLR63
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This revision is directed against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', but reducing the sentences to four months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. (2) The petitioner has a shop numbered 1251 at Gali Charhat Gulian, Jama Masjid, Delhi. Food Inspector O.P. Khurana on 11.11. 1970 at about 6 a.m. found the petitioner selling milk from a container which bore the inscription 'cow milk', and took a sample of the same for analysis according to law. The report was that the same is misbranded as the same is skimmed milk but has been declared as Cow's Milk.' WHENprosecuted under Sections 7/16 of the Act, the petitioner's defense, as disclosed in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that he gave '...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Raghunath Sahai Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi262; 1973RLR81
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) Evidence having been recorded in respect of the application (C.M. 1536 of 1971) the parties counsel have been heard at length. The application was preferred under Order 22, rules 3 and 4 read with rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, under the date 2nd of September, 1971. It was preferred in the course of Regular Second Appeal No. 178-D of 1966. A reference to the memorandum of appeal discloses that the address of the single respondent given therein was 'Raghunath Gupta s/o Mahi Ram, resident of 26, Beadanpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi ' The appeal was admitted in the year 1966. Raghunath Sahai respondent died four years thereafter. (2) No counsel is expected to be every time aware of the death of any of the parties to the litigation in his charge A counsel may be unaware of the death of his own client. It is the choice of legal representatives of a client to inform his counsel about the demise. It is rightly stated in the application by Mr. Bishamber Dayal that he learnt a...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Devi Ganeriwala Vs. Dhan Raj Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi1071; 1972RLR170
B.C. Misra, J. (1) The appellant owned a big hall at Kashmere Gate, Delhi, which was built in 1924. In about 1963 it was renovated and by putting up partition walls it was converted into 23 shops and let out to respondents and others at Rs. 80 per month. Respondent sued for fixation of standard rent which was fixed at Rs. 45.00. The order was upheld in appeal and appellant filed second appeal in High Court claiming that the shops were a,new construction and were exempt from the fixation of standard rent U/S 6(2)(b) of the Rent Act and if not then standard rent should have been fixed U/S 6(1)(B)(2)(b) and not U/S 9(4) of the Act. After reciting S. 6(2)(b) and S. 7(I), the judgment proceeds ; (2) The increase of rent permitted by section 7(1), is in excess of the standard rent as defined in section 6. The scheme of the section is that with respect to properties constructed and let out prior to 2nd June, 1944, the rate at which they were let out, would subject to the additions calculated ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhlal Etc. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1973RLR67
M.R.A. Ansari (1) The petitioner is an accused in a case under sections 147 and 325 Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under section 342 Cr. P.C. and when asked whether he wished to examine any defense witnesses, he filed a list of 11 witnesses and wanted them to be summoned. The learned Magistrate passed the fallowing orders :-- 'THEwitnesses be summoned on payment of process fee and diet money. Rs. 175.00 as diet money be deposited.'the petitioner did not deposit the process fee and the diet money as directed by the learned Magistrate, but filed a revision petition in the Court of Session contending that no reasons were assigned by the learned Magistrate for requiring him to deposit the diet money of the witnesses and that the learned Magistrate ought to have summoned the defense witnesses at Government expense. The learned Additional Session Judge accepted this c...
Tag this Judgment!Nartnden Gopal and Co. Vs. Northern India Timber Supply Company
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi544
Anand, J. (1) This petition must be dismissed on the short ground that the impugned order is beyond the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition has arisen in the following circumstances :- (2) The petitioners are defendants in a suit filed by the respondent for the recovery of about Rs. 10,000 on account of price of goods alleged to have been supplied by the respondent to the defendants. The plaintiff closed his case on August, 1,1968. When the suit came up for the evidence of the defendants on August 21, 1968 no evidence of the defendant was either present nor had any been summoned. On the request of the counsel for the defendants for adjournment the trial court made the following order:- 'Its fixed for defendants' evidence. Date for the evidence was fixed long time back but they have not summoned any evidence nor any evidence is present. It is stated by learned counsel of the defts. that only the three defts; namely, Nos. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Delhi Vs. Sagwa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi294
ORDER1. By his order dated October 10, 1969 the Additional district Judge, Delhi while dealing with an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on behalf of 16 claimants has decided a preliminary issue as to whether Kaniya (respondent No. 14 herein), who was one of the 16 claimants, had received payment without protest on the facts admitted by the parties. He decided the issue against the petitioners and held that Kanahiya was entitled to join in the said application.2. The facts are that lands belonging to there respondent were acquired and the Collector made an award where under Kanhiya, respondent No. 14, ahd also to receive the compensation offered by the Collector. On December 12, 1962, Kanhiya made an application to the Collector to the effect that the would receive the payment as offered by the Collector but under protest. However, when Kanhiya actually received payment on January 22, 1963, he did not mention his protest on the receipt given by him at that...
Tag this Judgment!